Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 78
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2,366

    A bettererer Snowshoe?


  2. #2
    Loser
    Reputation: Jisch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,502
    They fixed their ruler over at Vee Tire?

  3. #3
    Lord Thunderbottom
    Reputation: TitanofChaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    897
    This does not fix my sterlings that are barely 4" on the rim that fatback says they will be 4.25" on
    Today I will do what others won't, so tomorrow I can do what others can't

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: buckfiddious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    893
    No honest, this time we mean it.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    72
    My initial thoughts were on the labeled size... if the original Snowshoe was 4.7", an XL should be at least 5.9". Looking forward to trying one though, whatever the label says.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wetpaint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    313
    I'm not buying the width claims until I see proof on a Surly rim. That'd be great if it's truly a 4.7" this time, nice alternative to Bud/Lou

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    164
    If that comes within a few mm's of Bud/Lou, and you can get one studded for $170, that's an awesome deal. Compare that to buying the carbide studs at $.75 each and putting them in yourself, it's a no brainer.

  8. #8
    Oslo, Norway
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    533
    They have confirmed the casing size spec that I recommended a while back, and that is 121mm casing width on a 100mm rim.
    For comparison, Lou is 121mm and Bud is 119 (on the same rim), so this should turn out to be same width as Lou, and slighly wider than Bud.
    240 studs on the studded version, so this will be a huge volume studded tire, aka nice allrounder for winter use.
    R&D Manager
    Diamant & Nakamura bikes (until mid-December 2016)
    http://www.youtube.com/user/NDprototyping?feature=mhee

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    371
    Quote Originally Posted by Espen W View Post
    They have confirmed the casing size spec that I recommended a while back, and that is 121mm casing width on a 100mm rim.
    For comparison, Lou is 121mm and Bud is 119 (on the same rim), so this should turn out to be same width as Lou, and slighly wider than Bud.
    240 studs on the studded version, so this will be a huge volume studded tire, aka nice allrounder for winter use.
    So for us 170 guys, the original Snowshoe isn't appreciably larger than a Nate, and the new Snoeshoe XL is as large as a Lou and won't fit. Why can't someone make a tire just a hair smaller than the Lou so the rest of us can go wide without having to spend big $$$ on a new frame/hub/rims/cranks... I guess the idea is to make us spend the $$$. I'm still holding out for a tweener tire.

  10. #10
    Missouri sucks...
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,306
    Quote Originally Posted by BobShort View Post
    So for us 170 guys, the original Snowshoe isn't appreciably larger than a Nate, and the new Snoeshoe XL is as large as a Lou and won't fit. Why can't someone make a tire just a hair smaller than the Lou so the rest of us can go wide without having to spend big $$$ on a new frame/hub/rims/cranks... I guess the idea is to make us spend the $$$. I'm still holding out for a tweener tire.
    I'm going to try a Specialized tire when they're available. Looks to be about the only "tweener" tire for us 170mm guys that I'm aware of...

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    198
    Quote Originally Posted by BobShort View Post
    So for us 170 guys, the original Snowshoe isn't appreciably larger than a Nate, and the new Snoeshoe XL is as large as a Lou and won't fit. Why can't someone make a tire just a hair smaller than the Lou so the rest of us can go wide without having to spend big $$$ on a new frame/hub/rims/cranks... I guess the idea is to make us spend the $$$. I'm still holding out for a tweener tire.

    Quote Originally Posted by DFYFZX View Post
    I'm going to try a Specialized tire when they're available. Looks to be about the only "tweener" tire for us 170mm guys that I'm aware of...
    I got tired of waiting for that unicorn and bought a Fatback 190. Had a guy at the LBS measure the Ground Control with calipers and it appears to be just about as big as bud/lou; I wasn't confident about it fitting my Fatback 170 and who knows when they will be sold a la carte.

    Love the sound of the snowshoe XL studded for $170. Pair of those will probably be my "big purchase" next year.

  12. #12
    Oslo, Norway
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    533
    Casing width with the tire laid flat is the true measure of volume. Here are some measurements that I and others have done:

    Nate: 220mm
    Mission: 227mm
    Snowshoe: 238mm
    Ground Control 241mm
    BFL: 245mm
    Bud: 260mm
    R&D Manager
    Diamant & Nakamura bikes (until mid-December 2016)
    http://www.youtube.com/user/NDprototyping?feature=mhee

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Overkill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    388
    Good to hear about the Ground Control being between the Bud and Nate in terms of casing size. I love my Nate/Bud combo on my 170mm 907, but I really want that extra volume on the back as I experience soft snow quite regularily. I'm not aware of anyone testing a ground control on a RD on a 907...

    The shop I ride for is a 907 and specialized dealer, so I'm hoping I can see if this combo works in the near future - regardless, I don't believe the ground controls will be available until beyond April. If it fits, I will be more than happy staying on my 170mm 907 though (rather than upgrading to 190mm). fingers crossed.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    371
    Quote Originally Posted by Willum View Post
    I got tired of waiting for that unicorn and bought a Fatback 190. Had a guy at the LBS measure the Ground Control with calipers and it appears to be just about as big as bud/lou; I wasn't confident about it fitting my Fatback 170 and who knows when they will be sold a la carte.

    Love the sound of the snowshoe XL studded for $170. Pair of those will probably be my "big purchase" next year.
    I'm surprised Surly doesn't come out with a more aggressive tire on the BFL casing. It seems to be that happy medium size that is large but still fits in a lot of frames. I understand that they when huge on the Bud/Lou to put the competition on their heals and that strategy worked well. But now that the competition has caught up Surly could do very well with a tweener tire to sell to all the rest of us. But perhaps they are too busy throwing their resources at things we really need like tan sidewall Nates.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by BobShort View Post
    I'm surprised Surly doesn't come out with a more aggressive tire on the BFL casing. It seems to be that happy medium size that is large but still fits in a lot of frames. I understand that they when huge on the Bud/Lou to put the competition on their heals and that strategy worked well. But now that the competition has caught up Surly could do very well with a tweener tire to sell to all the rest of us. But perhaps they are too busy throwing their resources at things we really need like tan sidewall Nates.
    I think that once you add the aggressive tread onto the BFL it is only slightly smaller than a Bud/Lou. BFL fits because the tread is very shallow. An aggressive treadded BFL might fit some 170 bikes but not comfortably on Pugsley which would not make marketing sense for Surly.
    I expect that the Larry's will eventually be replaced by something else but not sure what yet.

    Craig

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    198
    Knard 4.75 would be cool

  17. #17
    Lord Thunderbottom
    Reputation: TitanofChaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    897
    Quote Originally Posted by Overkill View Post
    Good to hear about the Ground Control being between the Bud and Nate in terms of casing size. I love my Nate/Bud combo on my 170mm 907, but I really want that extra volume on the back as I experience soft snow quite regularily. I'm not aware of anyone testing a ground control on a RD on a 907...

    The shop I ride for is a 907 and specialized dealer, so I'm hoping I can see if this combo works in the near future - regardless, I don't believe the ground controls will be available until beyond April. If it fits, I will be more than happy staying on my 170mm 907 though (rather than upgrading to 190mm). fingers crossed.
    I've been wondering about this for a while now, will it work on 65/70/82's? time will tell
    Today I will do what others won't, so tomorrow I can do what others can't

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    371
    Quote Originally Posted by CBBaron View Post
    I think that once you add the aggressive tread onto the BFL it is only slightly smaller than a Bud/Lou. BFL fits because the tread is very shallow. An aggressive treadded BFL might fit some 170 bikes but not comfortably on Pugsley which would not make marketing sense for Surly.
    I expect that the Larry's will eventually be replaced by something else but not sure what yet.

    Craig
    I'm pretty sure my 170mm frame could handle a knobbier BFL size tire, but you are probably right about the Pugs. Here are pics of my frame clearance with a Nate, BFL, and Lou on a Rolling Darryl rim:

    Nate:
    A bettererer Snowshoe?-imag0207%5B1%5D.jpg

    BFL:
    A bettererer Snowshoe?-imag0208%5B1%5D.jpg

    Lou:
    A bettererer Snowshoe?-imag0165%5B1%5D.jpg

  19. #19
    Anchorage, AK
    Reputation: Lars_D's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,130

    Re: A bettererer Snowshoe?

    Weight?

    --Lars
    --Peace

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: damnitman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,290
    "An aggressive treadded BFL might fit some 170 bikes but not comfortably on Pugsley which would not make marketing sense for Surly"

    I would bet there are more non-Pugs fatbikes than there are Pugsleys...when you bought a Puglsey you made a compromise...live with it...the market should not be driven by those who made compromises...

    -note-the tone of my post is more harsh than intended...however the message is valid.
    If Huffy made an airplane, would you fly in it?

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2,366
    Quote Originally Posted by Lars_D View Post
    Weight?

    --Lars
    You want to know the weight of a tire that doesn't exist?

  22. #22
    Fat!Drunk!Slow!
    Reputation: JordyB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,451
    1492 kilobytes

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by damnitman View Post
    "An aggressive treadded BFL might fit some 170 bikes but not comfortably on Pugsley which would not make marketing sense for Surly"

    I would bet there are more non-Pugs fatbikes than there are Pugsleys...when you bought a Puglsey you made a compromise...live with it...the market should not be driven by those who made compromises...

    -note-the tone of my post is more harsh than intended...however the message is valid.
    I was mentioning that Surly would be less likely to produce a tire that primarily targeted non Surly bikes as owners. Their tires are either going to fit on the Pugs or aim squarely at the Moonlander.

    However I bought my Pugs when it was the only reasonably affordable choice. So while it may be a compromise now, at the time it was not.
    And I'm not sure about your assertion of Pugs vs 170mm bikes. Pugs has been around considerably longer than the others and Surly was generally more available than the others. Since no one posts sales numbers its hard to tell.

    Craig

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikefat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    313
    The issue of fitment of the biggest tires on 170mm frames is a tricky one, I certainly don't have the answer. Ideally, this tire will work on my bike with my planned 80mm rims... with 100mm rims, it'll fit between the stays easily enough on my new frame (just got back from LBS with it), but will the chainline work? These two articles tell me not to get my hopes up...

    Tech Speak: Decoding Fatbike Hub Spacing and Drivetrain Compatibility with Wolf Tooth Components
    http://salsacycles.com/culture/tech_..._tire_capacity
    Denver Broncos: 101-3 since 1975 when scoring 30+ at home.

    C.J. Anderson career YPC = 5.67

  25. #25
    Location: SouthPole of MN
    Reputation: duggus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,712
    I'm actually really excited for this tire. I've wanted a studded option for the front but don't want to start putting them into my Bud which is also used for summer. I just hope the casing stays true to what they say it will be, and price stays at $170 with studs.
    Last edited by duggus; 03-25-2014 at 09:29 AM.
    ...Be careful what you're looking at because it might be looking back...

  26. #26
    Location: SouthPole of MN
    Reputation: duggus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,712
    Update on this. Not just a studded Snowshoe XL... also a 4.7 "Bulldozer"

    From BikeRumor: Taipei Cycle Show: Vee Tire Co. Fatbike Tires ? Bigger, Studded, 29+, and 27.5? Fatbikes?





    Following in the tire tracks of their Snowshoe, the new Snowshoe XL measures in at a true 4.8″. The original Snowshoe came in undersized so they are relabeling the tire a 4.5″ to reflect the actual size. But the XL is about more than just size Ė in order to provide as much grip as possible the tire has a textured surface between the tread blocks. If that and low pressure alone arenít cutting it, the new XL will be sold as a studded tire in addition to a studless version. Like the rest of the fatbike line up, the XL and Snowshoe will be offered in Veeís Silca compount which basically uses sand mixed in with the rubber to increase grip and it lightens the rubber a bit as an added bonus.

    Available in 72 or 120tpi casing with a folding bead, the Snowshoe XL studded tire will retail for $195 (120tpi), and the XL studless 120 will run $150.





    If itís a more aggressive fatbike tire you seek, the Bulldozer looks like it may live up to its name. Built with aggressive corner and transition knobs and a ramped center, the Bulldozer looks like a great tire for rallying your fatbike on the trails. Labeled a 4.7, the Bulldozer will come in 72 or 120 tpi and in wire or folding bead, with the 120tpi folding tire selling for $160.
    ...Be careful what you're looking at because it might be looking back...

  27. #27
    Oslo, Norway
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    533
    R&D Manager
    Diamant & Nakamura bikes (until mid-December 2016)
    http://www.youtube.com/user/NDprototyping?feature=mhee

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    164
    Espen - are they saying when these will hit the supply channel?

  29. #29
    Oslo, Norway
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    533
    Quote Originally Posted by RickyB View Post
    Espen - are they saying when these will hit the supply channel?
    Will check with Preston & Co tomorrow.
    These guys move with the speed of light, so in case I don't have any complaints after testing and measuring the protos early next week, they should hit the molds very soon.
    R&D Manager
    Diamant & Nakamura bikes (until mid-December 2016)
    http://www.youtube.com/user/NDprototyping?feature=mhee

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    250
    Quote Originally Posted by Overkill View Post
    Good to hear about the Ground Control being between the Bud and Nate in terms of casing size. I love my Nate/Bud combo on my 170mm 907, but I really want that extra volume on the back as I experience soft snow quite regularily. I'm not aware of anyone testing a ground control on a RD on a 907...

    I will be more than happy staying on my 170mm 907 though (rather than upgrading to 190mm). fingers crossed.
    I have always been curious if a Bud would fit on the back of a 9zero7 170mm bike? I would assume not but have you actually checked? I have an orange 170mm 907 and currently run the Nates front and rear but have considered ponying up for a Bud upfront. If the Bud does not fit in the rear, is it just a frame issue or is it a chainline issue? If chainline, could you go to a just a middle ring and run a 1x10? I know of a bike shop in which a fella runs Bud and Lou on a Muk on RD rims but had to go with a middle only chainring to get sufficient chainline clearance. Thanks!

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smthgfshy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    187
    Quote Originally Posted by Team Honeybadger View Post
    I have always been curious if a Bud would fit on the back of a 9zero7 170mm bike? I would assume not but have you actually checked? I have an orange 170mm 907 and currently run the Nates front and rear but have considered ponying up for a Bud upfront. If the Bud does not fit in the rear, is it just a frame issue or is it a chainline issue? If chainline, could you go to a just a middle ring and run a 1x10? I know of a bike shop in which a fella runs Bud and Lou on a Muk on RD rims but had to go with a middle only chainring to get sufficient chainline clearance. Thanks!
    Bud can't fit w/o cutting the lugs. I took my 9zero7 to chain rxn in Anc to try it. I run a 1x9 w/a 30t on the middle ring - could barely fit. Can't run anything on a smaller ring if you'd want to w/o chain line issues. I'm running 70mm Uma's.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wetpaint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    313
    A Bud doesn't fit on 170mm 907 in the rear. I could get it in the frame, but it was rubbing all over the place.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    250
    Ah, shoot. Not surprised though. Thanks for the info wetpaint and smithy. Well, I have a strong disdain (not pure unadulterated hatred) for Speshy stuff but I may have to compromise here if the ground control does end up fitting in the 907. Either that or pony up for a Moonlander and forget all about these frame and chainline issues. Maybe even an Ice Cream Truck if there was enough parts compatibility beyond the need for a 190mm rear hub.

  34. #34
    Location: SouthPole of MN
    Reputation: duggus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,712
    You know there are a lot of other tires that would work too and are pretty big. The regular VeeTire Snowshoe would fit your 907. On-One Floaters... the new Kenda or Maxxis fat tire would as well.
    ...Be careful what you're looking at because it might be looking back...

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gcappy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,641
    Quote Originally Posted by Team Honeybadger View Post
    Ah, shoot. Not surprised though. Thanks for the info wetpaint and smithy. Well, I have a strong disdain (not pure unadulterated hatred) for Speshy stuff but I may have to compromise here if the ground control does end up fitting in the 907. Either that or pony up for a Moonlander and forget all about these frame and chainline issues. Maybe even an Ice Cream Truck if there was enough parts compatibility beyond the need for a 190mm rear hub.
    If you like your 9-zero-7 why would you get a Moonlander instead of a new 190 9-zero-7?
    My 190 will take any tire and rim combo. I run Bud and Lou on Clownshoes.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    250

    Vee Rubber tires --- hmmmmm, been there, done that

    Quote Originally Posted by duggus View Post
    You know there are a lot of other tires that would work too and are pretty big. The regular VeeTire Snowshoe would fit your 907. On-One Floaters... the new Kenda or Maxxis fat tire would as well.
    My friend and i bought a pair of the Vee Rubber Devastators when they first come out (2012 IIRC not sure) . Definitely a durable tire but rides like a dead tennis ball! I did not learn my lesson, so I went ahead and bought a pair of Vee Rubber Missions when they first came out, once again they exhibited outrageous self steer out front unless pumped up to a ridiculous psi and, again, rode like a dead tennis ball. Due to my inclination to experiment, I persisted with various psi changes and finally gave up. In short, I would have to personally try out another Vee Rubber tire on a bike ride before investing in more of their tires at this point. My friend and I found that we could get used to the Vee Rubber tires self steer tendencies but the quality of the ride was not all that great. One positive was that the Vee Rubber tires were phenomenal on rocky terrain since we we didn't care if a tire got sliced open (and some of us were secretly wishing they would so we would have excuse to change them out! lol)

    I have heard good things about the On One Floater but at their pricepoint I would rather just pony up the extra dollars for the Surly Nate since I have not heard many (or any really) riders prefer the ride of the On One over the Nate.

    The Kenda and Maxxis will be something to consider. The irony is that with my truncated cassette I have significant chainline clearance on the 907 170mm and there is room around the frame for a bigger tire than the Nates on RDs. My understanding is that a BFL will fit but I would prefer a more aggressive tire than that for riding in NEPA.

    Thanks for the tire suggestions though, I am happy to hear that Kenda and Maxxis are getting into the game.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    250
    [QUOTE=gcappy;11047051]If you like your 9-zero-7 why would you get a Moonlander instead of a new 190 9-zero-7?

    Offhand, a couple reasons come to mind:
    - The feel of steel - My first mtb (a Giant ATB 26" rigid and first 10 speed road bike Sears no name) were both steel and a brief ride on several pugs has reminded me how I miss that springy ride. Surprisingly there is a difference even with those big fat tires attached to the frames.
    - flexibility to use any 135mm hub one wants from no name to Chris King if one so chooses. A lot to be said for that since I have am on my third or fourth formula hub for the 170mm. Good customer service from Salsa and my local bike shop but the hubs are less than ideal for heavier riders (down to 230lbs geared up). When this one fails, I will either switch to a Hope for one last try or I might just switch as much over as possible to a pugs or moonlander frame and have the wheels rebuilt with a 135mm hub.
    - no chainline or frame issues on the moonlander or pugs. I have seen the old white pugs running a full 3x9 with no issues. The 170mm 907 was not capable of that but hopefully that has improved with the 190mm.
    - general fit issues although this is more personal with a longer leg, short torso rider. The surlys tend to go with a shorter toptube than most frames (less of a benefit with the moonlander though) I am concerned about the pugs/moonie short headtube though since that will create other issues.
    - Keep in mind, I ride the fatbike year round so the ride feel is more pronounced on singletrack during the dry summer months. For winter only riders I can see where steel would be less of a benefit.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,876
    Fwiw team H, people who disliked the previous vee tires have liked the snowshoe tire. I'm pretty happy with the snowshoe from a value perspective.
    Originally posted by bucksaw87
    I still fail to see how mustaches, fixies, and PBR are ironic.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    250
    Quote Originally Posted by frorider View Post
    Fwiw team H, people who disliked the previous vee tires have liked the snowshoe tire. I'm pretty happy with the snowshoe from a value perspective.
    Well that is good to hear. I was under the impression that folks were disappointed in the real size vs the published size but that's not isolated solely to the bike industry. I would certainly be open to trying out a vee rubber equipped bike but I would be hesitant to spend any more time and money on them at this point.

    One of the attributes that attracted me to fatbikes back in 2010 was the simplicity (at the time). Personally I would prefer a few "good" tires than a wide selection of mediocre tires. It seems like there is a marketing push that is taking fatbikes out of the "adventure/exploring/drinking lol" category into the same old stravatizing, trail sanitizing, gps with heart rate, altimeter, barometer, Vo2, etc equipped folks. Shrug, feed the beast I guess...

  40. #40
    Oslo, Norway
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    533
    I remeasured the bead-bead of the Snowshoe XL with proper equipment (measuring tape rather than ruler) and it came to the expected 260mm, exactly matching the Bud/Lous that I have. In other words, the casing size is exactly what I recommended to Vee when we planned the tire.
    Knob width is also spot on, at around 119mm.
    I installed it on our 103mm rims and inflated to 30psi in order to seat them properly.
    4.83'' at that psi right out of the box, and it will grow somewhat after a few days.
    Down at a more ridable 4psi, they also match the size of the (used and stretched somewhat) Lou (approx 4.65''), so all is good. This was with a thick 620g tube, so should grow even more with a thinner tube, and set up tubeless, I think it should break the 5'' barrier on the C4 rims, after being stretched under tire pressure for a while. Due to the shape and knob pattern, they appear even more monstrous than the Bud that is still on the front (in order to gauge riding conditions).
    I will be testing them vs. tires like Dillinger/Bud/Snowshoe I these days, but the record warm winter means 50F+ and super slushy snow up here in the Arctic (Norway), so conditions are tricky.

    Digital caliper modified to measure tires correctly (zeroed at the new 0-point)
    R&D Manager
    Diamant & Nakamura bikes (until mid-December 2016)
    http://www.youtube.com/user/NDprototyping?feature=mhee

  41. #41
    Location: SouthPole of MN
    Reputation: duggus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,712
    Nice! Did you happen to see one yet or snap a photo with a studded version?

    I just finally got some gripstuds in my Bud/Lou but it's not exactly a fast process to put them in and take out.
    ...Be careful what you're looking at because it might be looking back...

  42. #42
    Anchorage, AK
    Reputation: Lars_D's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,130
    How about the weight?
    --Peace

  43. #43
    Oslo, Norway
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    533
    Quote Originally Posted by duggus View Post
    Nice! Did you happen to see one yet or snap a photo with a studded version?
    Studded prototype not finished yet. Vee placed a massive order for carbide studs with alloy base with a stud manufacturer, but not done yet.
    R&D Manager
    Diamant & Nakamura bikes (until mid-December 2016)
    http://www.youtube.com/user/NDprototyping?feature=mhee

  44. #44
    Oslo, Norway
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    533
    Quote Originally Posted by Lars_D View Post
    How about the weight?
    My samples came in at 1440 and 1470g, but according to Vee, production versions should average 1380g.
    R&D Manager
    Diamant & Nakamura bikes (until mid-December 2016)
    http://www.youtube.com/user/NDprototyping?feature=mhee

  45. #45
    Oslo, Norway
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    533
    Test rode Snowshoe XL vs. Dillinger last night. Somewhat better in basically unrideable slush, but once on dry, crusted snow, the grip was absolutely spectacular. On a super steep climb that the guy on Dillingers spun out on (seated) and failed to make in 5 attempts, I was able to ride up, out of the saddle. Velcro like grip right there. Both tires were at 3.2psi, the Dillinger on 80s and with 13F's tubes were so soft that the thumbs would hit the rim when squeezing the tire, while the XL could have been deflated to sub 2psi with the monster 620g tube that I ran. That would have meant close to 70% more grip surface vs. the 3.2psi that I used.
    I will ride the same course with a Lou on the rear today. I expect somewhat better slush performance due to 7mm vs 5mm center knobs and more scoop like pattern (in the propulsion direction). Will be interesting to see if it also has the crazy glue like grip on that particular ultra steep climb. The Silica compound of the XL is such that after being ridden on snow, your fingers will stick to the tread when touching it, like fresh chewing gum.
    Tomorrow, I will be back on the XL, testing against a regular Snowshoe on a 80mm and the same on a 102mm.

    Snowshoe XL vs. regular Snowshoe on 103mm and 102mm rims respectively.



    Video:
    Snowshoe XL on 103mm rims vs. Dillinger on 80mm:
    R&D Manager
    Diamant & Nakamura bikes (until mid-December 2016)
    http://www.youtube.com/user/NDprototyping?feature=mhee

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: iamkeith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    739
    Espen,

    Can you bring me (us?) up to date on the Snowshoe measurement-versus-size issue? Is it fair to assume that this this prototype they've given you may or may not actually reflect production sizes again? I actually ask this hopefully, this time! If the final ones come out exactly as you measured here, I'm probably still more interested in the original ones, simply given the frame clearance I have. But when they say that they've "re-labeled" those first ones to 4.5", does that mean they adjusted that mold too? Or are those still actually 4" tires, but now with a 4.5" label? Thanks for your insight and efforts!

    Quote Originally Posted by Espen W View Post
    I remeasured the bead-bead of the Snowshoe XL with proper equipment (measuring tape rather than ruler) and it came to the expected 260mm, exactly matching the Bud/Lous that I have. In other words, the casing size is exactly what I recommended to Vee when we planned the tire.
    Knob width is also spot on, at around 119mm.
    I installed it on our 103mm rims and inflated to 30psi in order to seat them properly.
    4.83'' at that psi right out of the box, and it will grow somewhat after a few days.
    Down at a more ridable 4psi, they also match the size of the (used and stretched somewhat) Lou (approx 4.65''), so all is good. This was with a thick 620g tube, so should grow even more with a thinner tube, and set up tubeless, I think it should break the 5'' barrier on the C4 rims, after being stretched under tire pressure for a while. Due to the shape and knob pattern, they appear even more monstrous than the Bud that is still on the front (in order to gauge riding conditions).
    I will be testing them vs. tires like Dillinger/Bud/Snowshoe I these days, but the record warm winter means 50F+ and super slushy snow up here in the Arctic (Norway), so conditions are tricky.
    We still hang bike thieves in Wyoming [Pedal House]

  47. #47
    Oslo, Norway
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    533
    Quote Originally Posted by iamkeith View Post
    Espen,

    Can you bring me (us?) up to date on the Snowshoe measurement-versus-size issue? Is it fair to assume that this this prototype they've given you may or may not actually reflect production sizes again? I actually ask this hopefully, this time! If the final ones come out exactly as you measured here, I'm probably still more interested in the original ones, simply given the frame clearance I have. But when they say that they've "re-labeled" those first ones to 4.5", does that mean they adjusted that mold too? Or are those still actually 4" tires, but now with a 4.5" label? Thanks for your insight and efforts!
    I specified the XL to have the same exact casing size as the Lou, since that is pretty much the maximum possible tire size that fits in most 190mm frames, especially on our own 103mm rims that that pull these tires out to very close to a real 5'' and likely beyond when I set them up tubeless.
    Production versions should be exactly the same.
    I asked Vee to relabel the original Snowshoe to 4.5 in order to make it more in line with the 4.8 stamp on the XL.
    It seems that a few of the original Snowshoes shared the faulty casing with some of the Fatback Sterlings that were truly undersize.
    However, all the Snowshoes that I have seen have been in the 238-240mm bead to bead width range. Compare that to 220mm for the Nates that I have measured and 245mm for the Surly BFL, which is also labeled 4.7, but measures 4.48'' on a Clownshoe, according to Surly.
    The new Dillinger 5 is labeled 4.8, but only measures a true 4.5 according to 45NRTH. It is listed at 115mm casing width on a 100mm rim (that is 4.52''). I have measured most Snowshoes to 114mm (4.49'') on 100mm rims, so the original 4.7'' label on those were actually more correct than the 4.8 on the Dillinger 5, and with the new 4.5'' label, it will be more correctly labeled than most from Surly/45NRTH, where it seems that only the Dillinger (4.0) and Lou (4.78'') are true to the label.
    One thing to keep in mind on the original Snowshoe is that the knob width is a rather narrow 90mm, but the casing width is 114mm when on a 100, so it has a more correct shape on a 80 rim. This might have caused some folks to claim that it is a 4.0 even though casing and flotation wise, the (non faulty ones) are 4.5''.

    As I have mentioned before, the only true way to measure the volume of any tire is to flip it inside out, lay it flat and measure the bead to bead width with a measuring tape.
    R&D Manager
    Diamant & Nakamura bikes (until mid-December 2016)
    http://www.youtube.com/user/NDprototyping?feature=mhee

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    230
    Quote Originally Posted by Espen W View Post
    The Silica compound of the XL is such that after being ridden on snow, the your fingers will stick to the tread when touching it, like fresh chewing gum.
    This might have already been discussed (and my apologies if so), but is the silica compound tread rubber the same stuff that was used in the tires V made for fatback?

    These tires look very nice!

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation: iamkeith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    739
    Quote Originally Posted by Espen W View Post
    It seems that a few of the original Snowshoes shared the faulty casing with some of the Fatback Sterlings that were truly undersize.
    However, all the Snowshoes that I have seen have been in the 238-240mm bead to bead width range. Compare that to 220mm for the Nates that I have measured and 245mm for the Surly BFL, which is also labeled 4.7, but measures 4.48'' on a Clownshoe, according to Surly....I have measured most Snowshoes to 114mm (4.49'') on 100mm rims...
    OH!! Good news - I never caught wind of this. I was under the impression that the mold was just "wrong" and that there were more than just a "few" faulty casings! Thank you for the update. And the data is helpful too - Now I know exactly what measurement needs to confirmed, before having someone accidentally ship me the faulty ones. Thanks much!!
    We still hang bike thieves in Wyoming [Pedal House]

  50. #50
    Oslo, Norway
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    533
    Quote Originally Posted by iamkeith View Post
    OH!! Good news - I never caught wind of this. I was under the impression that the mold was just "wrong" and that there were more than just a "few" faulty casings! Thank you for the update. And the data is helpful too - Now I know exactly what measurement needs to confirmed, before having someone accidentally ship me the faulty ones. Thanks much!!
    You could also look into the H-Billie and Bulldozer. The Bulldozer should be somewhat bigger than the original Snowshoe, and has a nice knob width.
    R&D Manager
    Diamant & Nakamura bikes (until mid-December 2016)
    http://www.youtube.com/user/NDprototyping?feature=mhee

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. snowshoe WV
    By patIH in forum Vacations & Destinations
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-17-2014, 09:29 AM
  2. Bryce vs Snowshoe???
    By 2bfluid in forum Virginia, WV, Maryland, DC, Delaware
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-30-2013, 07:20 AM
  3. Snowshoe Race I
    By deeptroller123 in forum North & South Carolina
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-05-2013, 08:45 AM
  4. Snowshoe DH on a hardtail?
    By Roanoke4 in forum Virginia, WV, Maryland, DC, Delaware
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 09-13-2012, 03:52 PM
  5. Snowshoe big air!
    By motobutane in forum Virginia, WV, Maryland, DC, Delaware
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 08-26-2011, 11:53 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •